If you were shooting superbikes, which of these lens would you choose..

B

bdigital

Suspended / Banned
Messages
332
Edit My Images
No
Hi Everyone.

I have decided to upgrade my kit for motorsport photography (mainly superbikes)

I have decided on a 7D (coming from a 550D) and the lens choice im stuck with..... Its either the 100-400 L or the 70-300 L (or with an outside shot the 50-500mm Sigma)

I have read about the pros and cons of each and I know its a commonly asked question, so i will try and ask a different one.

If you wanted to shoot BSB, WSB, Moto GP using a 7D.....Which lens would you choose? (my budget is 2.2k for body and lens)

Would love to hear your thoughts

Thank you
 
bdigital said:
Hi Everyone.

I have decided to upgrade my kit for motorsport photography (mainly superbikes)

I have decided on a 7D (coming from a 550D) and the lens choice im stuck with..... Its either the 100-400 L or the 70-300 L (or with an outside shot the 50-500mm Sigma)

I have read about the pros and cons of each and I know its a commonly asked question, so i will try and ask a different one.

If you wanted to shoot BSB, WSB, Moto GP using a 7D.....Which lens would you choose? (my budget is 2.2k for body and lens)

Would love to hear your thoughts

Thank you
Click to expand...

I can't help with the lens choice but just out of interest are you planning on selling any of the images you take? It's just that there's some sort of rule where you aren't allowed, or have to give a percentage to BSB or something... It's a bit vague my knowledge as have a friend who sponsors some of the riders and so he said something about it one day.

Completely unrelated but you might appreciate this shot of Peter Hickman at Oulton Park last year:

7166189222_5dc50b79ac_z.jpg
 
No i wont be selling. These are for my own enjoyment and satisfaction. I dont know much about selling the images but theres probably a lot of people who already do that and i have no interest in making it a job.

Its a hobby to me :)

Any thoughts on the lenses? The 70-300 l wins in most situation except those when you need the reach. But i can only afford one so im stuck!
 
Tbh I was just there to shoot some competition winners with Hicky and Dan Linfoot for one of the sponsors and managed to blag my way in to the pit garage with Hicky through this to get that shot, so didn't and haven't ever done the race pics that I think you're hoping to take.

I did have a wander around though and as the best spots are taken by the official togs I'd imagine you'd need a very long zoom. I had a little play with a cheap 200mm zoom and didn't have enough reach (also I'm crap at this type of thing so didn't really try for long), so would imagine you'd need a minimum of 300mm, and also one that focuses fast and accurately.

Sorry I can't be any more help than that.
 
Actually I tell a lie I've just checked my Flickr and did do some shots of the race... here's a link to them. These were all done at 200mm on a lens without IS... no idea if I've cropped them or not as was a while ago, but should give you some indication of what you could expect from an extra 100mm reach on the lens you mentioned:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68202540@N04/sets/72157629676397350/
 
I've shot MotoGP with a 100-400 and found it to be fine. However, the 100-300 wasn't available when I bought mine, but I'm not sure that I would have chosen differently if it was. If you're undecided, why not try renting both for a race weekend, and see which you prefer. Using them side by side should give you a good comparison from which to make a choice.
 
Last edited:
I think I would be tempted by a 70-200 f2.8 and a teleconvertor or 2. I currently use a 70-200 f4l + 1.4x tele and find it a bit lacking in reach sometimes but I'm pretty sure you could use a 2x tele on the f2.8, not doubt someone will come along who knows
 
I shot BSB at Thruxton using a 100-400 on a 1d3.

Great lens for all the available spots.
It's not as fast as 70-200/2.8 but the extra reach is handy.
Dean
 
there is a battered 300f2.8 in the for sale section going for about a grand i think, if its as described ie sharp then that would be perfect for motorsport.

but i would be inclined to agree chris954, the 70-200f2.8 and a few converters will work well but then you still have upto 200mm at 2.8 when light isnt the best.

the canon 28-300L is a great lens and about a grand second hand, i had one but isnt compatible with converters.
 
Which lens depends whether you're shooting from behind the fences or have a media pass and can get on the other side of the fence. The vast majority of tracks in the UK require 400mm + if you behind the fence, OK there are corners, certain places where you can get closer, but most of the time your obstructed by safety fences.

The other problem is the UK weather, the f5.6, 6.3 lenses just don't cut the mustard if conditions ain't near perfect. My main lens is the 300mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8 comes out very occasionally, but majority of shots are with the prime.

300mm f4 + 1.4x TC
IMG_0603copy1.jpg


300mm f2.8 + 2x TC
IMG_5729copy1.jpg


If I was to recommend a lens for motorsport other than the prime, then the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS would fit the bill, but that's outside your budget, so an alternative (used) is the sigma 100-300mm f4 cracking lens (£500).

Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS is another option, followed by the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6

The sigma 50-500mm OS or 150-500mm OS lenses are usable, but you lose the light and there performance drops off because of the f6.3, but for the money they ain't bad and the sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6 OS another to consider or a used 120-300mm f2.8 (non OS) used for around £900, but that lens had a few issue, but if you got a good copy?

The 70-200mm f2.8 MKI IS is just too short for most circuits and I've not been overly impressed with its performance with TCs. The canon MKII is better, but that blows your budget on the lens.

Personally a used 100-300mm f4 or 120-300mm f2.8 sigma might tick your boxes
 
ajax_andy said:
I can't help with the lens choice but just out of interest are you planning on selling any of the images you take? It's just that there's some sort of rule where you aren't allowed, or have to give a percentage to BSB or something... It's a bit vague my knowledge as have a friend who sponsors some of the riders and so he said something about it one day.

Completely unrelated but you might appreciate this shot of Peter Hickman at Oulton Park last year:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that who ever takes the photo it belongs to them. If I sold one of my photos from a BSB event, I owe nothing to them. Dunno where you heard that but its not true.
Maybe true for the track side togs but they may well pay a percentage or an upfront fee.
 
CarlEvans said:
I'm pretty sure that who ever takes the photo it belongs to them. If I sold one of my photos from a BSB event, I owe nothing to them. Dunno where you heard that but its not true.
Maybe true for the track side togs but they may well pay a percentage or an upfront fee.
Click to expand...

Belongs to yes. Has a right to sell / publish - not necessarily.

When you are a spectator on private property as pretty much every track is then you are bound by the T&Cs of admittance. If that prevents commercial use/sale (possible) or requires a percentage payment (unlikely) then whilst you own the copyright to the image it will be worthless beyond your own personal viewing pleasure.

You may also find you face trademark restrictions on commercial (rather than editorial) usage due to sponsors and manufacturers logos and designs even if you are OK'd by the track.

Event photographers sometimes negotiate a percentage fee to the track. Press photographer are there as far as the track/organisation are concerned to promote them in the news and don't pay for the privilege.

Big big difference between copyright, and right to use.
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
Belongs to yes. Has a right to sell / publish - not necessarily.

When you are on private property as pretty much every track is then you are bound by the T&Cs of admittance. If that prevents commercial use/sale (possible) or requires a percentage payment (unlikely) then whilst you own the copyright to the image it will be worthless beyond your own personal viewing pleasure.

You may also find you face trademark restrictions on commercial (rather than editorial) usage due to sponsors and manufacturers logos and designs even if you are OK'd by the track.

Event photographers sometimes negotiate a percentage fee to the track. Press photographer are there as far as the track/organisation are concerned to promote them in the news and don't pay for the privilege.

Big big difference between copyright, and right to licence.
Click to expand...

As much as you may be right/are right. If I've paid my entrance fee to watch my favourite racer ride and just because I can take a better picture than a fan with a point and shoot, ill take the the picture and if I want to sell it ill sell it :shrug:
However, I'm talking low key sales to mates etc but I completely understand where your coming from on the grand scale of things, if I was making thousands I may have a problem :lol:
 
personally if i were shooting superbikes I'd use an Uzi , but they do tend to jam when they get hot so watch out for that :whistling: :lol:

If on the other hand you wanted to take photos of them I'd say the 120-300 f2.8 - tbh i don't do a lot of motorsport but ive used that lens extensively for fast moving nature and its great - it does blow the budget a bit, but I'd rather have great glass and compromise on the body (maybe get the 7D second user)
 
pete.rush said:
Which lens depends whether you're shooting from behind the fences or have a media pass and can get on the other side of the fence. The vast majority of tracks in the UK require 400mm + if you behind the fence, OK there are corners, certain places where you can get closer, but most of the time your obstructed by safety fences.

The other problem is the UK weather, the f5.6, 6.3 lenses just don't cut the mustard if conditions ain't near perfect. My main lens is the 300mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8 comes out very occasionally, but majority of shots are with the prime.

300mm f4 + 1.4x TC

300mm f2.8 + 2x TC

If I was to recommend a lens for motorsport other than the prime, then the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS would fit the bill, but that's outside your budget, so an alternative (used) is the sigma 100-300mm f4 cracking lens (£500).

Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS is another option, followed by the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6

The sigma 50-500mm OS or 150-500mm OS lenses are usable, but you lose the light and there performance drops off because of the f6.3, but for the money they ain't bad and the sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6 OS another to consider or a used 120-300mm f2.8 (non OS) used for around £900, but that lens had a few issue, but if you got a good copy?

The 70-200mm f2.8 MKI IS is just too short for most circuits and I've not been overly impressed with its performance with TCs. The canon MKII is better, but that blows your budget on the lens.

Personally a used 100-300mm f4 or 120-300mm f2.8 sigma might tick your boxes
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your informative post. I guess the issue here is my budget.... I really cant afford more than 1.2k for glass.

Ive been leaning towards the 100-400 L for a while because it seems like the jack of all trades within my budget.

Do you think the 120-300mm f2.8 OS would be a much better option?

All these options are confusing things for me!
 
bdigital said:
Thank you very much for your informative post. I guess the issue here is my budget.... I really cant afford more than 1.2k for glass.

Ive been leaning towards the 100-400 L for a while because it seems like the jack of all trades within my budget.

Do you think the 120-300mm f2.8 OS would be a much better option?

All these options are confusing things for me!
Click to expand...

You could look at the 120-300mm f2.8 (non OS), you can pick one up for less than 1K, but there are issues with quality of manufacture, back focusing and paint work, but as a motorsport lens, is very good and can take a TC without too much issue, its just getting a good copy of the lens. The new OS version is 1.4 - 1.6K depending on where you go, so slightly outside your budget.
 
big soft moose said:
personally if i were shooting superbikes I'd use an Uzi , but they do tend to jam when they get hot so watch out for that :whistling: :lol:

If on the other hand you wanted to take photos of them I'd say the 120-300 f2.8 - tbh i don't do a lot of motorsport but ive used that lens extensively for fast moving nature and its great - it does blow the budget a bit, but I'd rather have great glass and compromise on the body (maybe get the 7D second user)
Click to expand...

:plusone::crowded: another option
 
CarlEvans said:
As much as you may be right/are right. If I've paid my entrance fee to watch my favourite racer ride and just because I can take a better picture than a fan with a point and shoot, ill take the the picture and if I want to sell it ill sell it :shrug:
However, I'm talking low key sales to mates etc but I completely understand where your coming from on the grand scale of things, if I was making thousands I may have a problem :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah that was why I was asking though mate as I know from one of the sponsors who sponsor about 5 riders that you can't commercially sell images taken at the track without a percentage going to someone or other

I'm sure pics sold to mates is fine as they'd never find out, but if the OP had been planning on selling at race days or on ebay etc then I thought I better warn so he didn't run in to any trouble
 
So if i could up my lens budget to 1.5k would there be better choices than the canon 100-400 L IS ?
 
bdigital said:
So if i could up my lens budget to 1.5k would there be better choices than the canon 100-400 L IS ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps 1.6K..... Then The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS if you can find it for that price, just be wary of certain websites like simply electricals.
 
Having done some more research into the 120-300 f2.8 EX OS USM I am very tempted to go for that + a 1.4x TC.

How would this setup compare with the 100-400 @ 400mm?
 
Canon 70-300 L or preferably a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II + extender
 
admirable said:
Canon 70-300 L or preferably a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II + extender
Click to expand...

Better than a 120-300 f2.8 + extender? The 70-300 L is f4-5.6.

Anyone know how the 120-300 compares in images quality to the 70-300 L and 100-400?
 
The 70-300 L is better than the 100-400L
 
A good copy of the 100-400 will probably match the sigma on image quality across the frame as will the 70-300L. The sigma is a bit soft at the edges wide open which probably isnt that big an issue on a crop sensor. Sigma builds quality seems very good and if you're prepared to pay the extra seems decent value especially for the 2stop advantage at the long end. It does weigh significantly more though than the canon lenses 2.6 kg v 1.4 & 1
 
Gaz J said:
A good copy of the 100-400 will probably match the sigma on image quality across the frame as will the 70-300L. The sigma is a bit soft at the edges wide open which probably isnt that big an issue on a crop sensor. Sigma builds quality seems very good and if you're prepared to pay the extra seems decent value especially for the 2stop advantage at the long end. It does weigh significantly more though than the canon lenses 2.6 kg v 1.4 & 1
Click to expand...

Thanks Gaz. The weight and size is something im willing to live with. Its the f2.8 that tempts me, because lets face it our weather can be pretty dull and the extra light will help achieve the speed required.

Having tried to look for motorsport images with this lens, i camt find many!! Flickr is mostly nature/wildlife, and cricket!

Im thinking of taking the plunge tomorrow, i just hope it will be a good purchase and will produce images on a par or better than the 100-400.
 
meonshore said:
Belongs to yes. Has a right to sell / publish - not necessarily.

When you are a spectator on private property as pretty much every track is then you are bound by the T&Cs of admittance. If that prevents commercial use/sale (possible) or requires a percentage payment (unlikely) then whilst you own the copyright to the image it will be worthless beyond your own personal viewing pleasure.

You may also find you face trademark restrictions on commercial (rather than editorial) usage due to sponsors and manufacturers logos and designs even if you are OK'd by the track.

Event photographers sometimes negotiate a percentage fee to the track. Press photographer are there as far as the track/organisation are concerned to promote them in the news and don't pay for the privilege.

Big big difference between copyright, and right to use.
Click to expand...

Just seen this.

I found out the answer to this a while back so probably worth sharing.

If you are on private property and they have a no photography or sales of photography etc, it is their job to inform you, NOT your job to ask.

For example: if they have on their website pictures taken may not be sold and they have a sign on the premesis clearly indicating this rule or directing to the website where rules can be found, the photographer would be at fault.

If however no such rules were enforced, the fault is with the staff/land owner and no blame or judgement can be made on the photographer for any sales.
 
Gaz J said:
A good copy of the 100-400 will probably match the sigma on image quality across the frame as will the 70-300L. The sigma is a bit soft at the edges wide open which probably isnt that big an issue on a crop sensor. Sigma builds quality seems very good and if you're prepared to pay the extra seems decent value especially for the 2stop advantage at the long end. It does weigh significantly more though than the canon lenses 2.6 kg v 1.4 & 1
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the OS version of the 120-300, with an x1.4 (making a 168-420/4) it knocks the socks off the 100-400 and IMO is better than the 70-200/2.8II with a doubler.

Not tried the 70-300L, but it's a variable.
 
Grey / dark / overcast - plus it was my first ever outing at BSB with the 7D and the 100-400 since moving from FF Sony I think the combo worked really quite well (spectator side of the fence at Brands Hatch)

Link to gallery HERE

and - I actually found the 'push / pull' zoom really useful when panning the bikes coming at me as with a little practice it's easy to fill the frame with the subject.

.DAVID.
 
DemiLion said:
If you are talking about the OS version of the 120-300, with an x1.4 (making a 168-420/4) it knocks the socks off the 100-400 and IMO is better than the 70-200/2.8II with a doubler.
Click to expand...

Can't comment on the 100-400 With a converter but the 70-200 MKII is comfortably better across the frame than the sigma and edges it in the centre at all apertures. The latest 1.4 doesn't degrade it much at all. Can't comment on the x2.
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
Can't comment on the 100-400 With a converter but the 70-200 MKII is comfortably better across the frame than the sigma and edges it in the centre at all apertures. The latest 1.4 doesn't degrade it much at all. Can't comment on the x2.
Click to expand...

On my 1Dmk4 the 70-200 mkII with the mk3 2x extender is what I use 90% of the time for racing, blew the 100-400 out of the water - BUT, I don't view everything at 110% I just view it as a photo and the few that I have printed out at A0 size have had zero complaints.

For your budget though I still recommend the Canon 100-400 over the others, but that's just me

.DAVID.
 
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has contributed to the thread.

I have now bought the sigma 120-300 f.28 OS. cant wait to use it!!

Now i have to choose a 105mm uv filter (not many about) and how i want to carry it (considering a black rapid)
 
I really wouldn't bother with a UV filter if I were you. It'll probably cost more than a front lens replacement.
 
£180 for a B&W. Leave the lens hood on all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top